Yes Virginia, There Is A Chris Redfern

Going over the Chris Redfern (Chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party) interview with Fred Lefebvre yesterday on Toledo radio station 1370 WSPD; I was amused, shocked, and finally outraged. Then I realized what my problem was ... I was a cynic.  

My epiphany came when I was able to make the connection in my head to the story from the New York Sun in 1897 by Francis P Church titled "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus". It reminded me once again of a simpler time in my life, when I believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. These were the days when my only responsibility was to get good grades in school and have fun. All of the financial obligations of my life were up to my parents. My father worked hard to make sure that we had a roof over our head, food was on the table, and that our family was properly clothed. My mother worked equally hard to take care of that home, take care of her family, and instill a sense of order and discipline in the hooligans that I and my siblings were. And on Sundays when the family went to church, even we children dropped envelopes in the collection plate to help those less fortunate.  

As I grew older, I came to realize that Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy were in fact, my parents. Not only were they there to instill a sense of responsibility in their children, but also to reinforce the sense of magic and wonder in the world that we had in the process. They did this I am sure, out their own sense of personal responsibility and their love for us. In those days I didn't attend church quite so regularly any more, but I still found ways to help those less fortunate. (After all, we were the Woodstock Generation.)  

These days I am grown up (OK not so much, but go with me on this). In this grown up world, I have gone through the process of filling those same roles and attempting to do the same things for my children that my parents did for me. I even found time to contribute to the spoiling of my grandchildren. I do this out of the sense of responsibility that I was given, and that I like to think that I have passed on to my children. The values of my youth and upbringing stay with me, as does my desire to help those less fortunate. Even when times are tough, I continue to try and give to worthy organizations for the betterment of my fellow man.

Mr. Redfern has quite a different view of the world. In his view there is no longer such a thing as personal responsibility (at least none that can be counted on). In his world all responsibilities are and should be placed in the hands of the government. The government is supposed to become all of those things (Santa, Easter Bunny, etc.) to all people because he is concerned that I can no longer be counted on to be responsible. In his world the government will likewise dispense all required charity to those in need.  The only responsibility that I apparently have left (one enforced at the point of a gun), is to continue to work in order to pay the crushing taxes that will be required, out of which all of this largesse will be dispensed by the government. 

I could be wrong (and often am), but I believe that the definition of charity involves the "voluntary" giving of time, material, or money to those less fortunate. But charity and responsibility seem to be lacking in the vocabulary of Mr. Redfern. They have been replaced by government programs, bureaucracy, and paperwork. All of the current charity going on in the world by individuals, churches, and non-profit organizations is apparently meaningless in Mr. Redfern's world, because it is not mandated or dispensed by government. 

There is a word that defines the practices that Mr. Redfern advocates however, and it is socialism. This word, defined as "political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" pretty accurately pins down the type of charity that Mr. Redfern understands, enthusiastically advocates, and which I should feel good about myself for participating in.

So yes Virginia, there is a Chris Redfern. He is the personification of the modern progressive government version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and yes even parents and the random Charitable Giver. He is the symbol of the only one those less fortunate should count on. You may sleep safer tonight knowing it (and he) are there.

Oh by the way Chris, you may want to check in with your presidential candidate on some of this when you get a chance. He has been preaching personal responsibility to fathers and families a lot lately.   I'm just sayin' ...

Fractured Fairy Tales - The Emperor's New Clothes

Yes boys and girls, it's time once again for another of these unique fables of our times (well, kind of anyway). This tale, like most of the others, should really need no introduction. So let's not waste any time and get right to it ...


Once upon a time, there was a ruler known simply "The Gov". Now The Gov liked to hold a parade that he nicknamed "the election" every couple of years (with bigger parades every 4 years) where he would smile a lot of smiles, shake a lot of hands, and kiss a lot of babies. As part of this bi-annual event, The Gov used to let the people of the kingdom send him the clothes that he would wear while walking the parade route. The people took this form of parade financing very seriously and rather enjoyed participating in so personal a way in the process. Neighborhoods, trade guilds, and even the local businesses would compete with each other by carefully selecting what they were going to send in the hopes of getting some special notice from the Gov.


One day, two tailors by the name of McCain and Feingold came to town. They listened to the story of the semi-annual parade and the clothing competition and were appalled. Such a system had to be rife with graft and chicanery, and as such must be ended immediately. So they went to The Gov to see if they could impose a more fair system of clothing financing (at least in their minds) and set things right. Knowing that changing tradition is often difficult, they realized that they would probably have to approach this change gradually. (Can you say incremental ism?)


"The shirt," they said, "is the most important thing that you wear. As such, it's simply not fair to let the people spend their 'hard' earned money and not achieve the desired access to you. Besides, the businesses can afford more than other people and that gives them an unfair advantage. So what we propose is to limit the amount of money that can be spent and let everyone send us the money. We will make your shirt."


"That seems fair," said the Gov, and that's how he decreed it.
Having gotten this far in their plans, McCain and Feingold soon approached The Gov again.


"The pants, when you think about it," they said "are just as important, and must match the shirt besides. Now a lot of people are trying to get around the shirt rules imposed by contributing to the pants. This is just as unfair, though the approach here is more of a 'soft' one than that used for the shirt. We think that there should be limits on this too in the true spirits of fairness. So we should limit the contributions on the pants and have them send the money in to us. We will make the pants as well."


"When you're right, you're right," The Gov replied. "See that it's done." ... and it was.


Now having all but achieved their goal, the two approached the ruler a final time.


"Gov," they said (they were long since on a first name basis). "No outfit is complete without a proper jacket. And with the fairness imposed by the previous restrictions for the shirt and pants, shouldn't we do something about the last loophole in the system? Shouldn't we do something about how the 'issue' of this jacket money is handled?"


"Goodness," The Gov replied. "How could I have missed this? Of course we will change this 'issue' of money for the jacket and fairness will thereby be assured."


Time passed, the day of the parade finally arrived. The Gov. was dressed by his two "Tailors of Fairness"; and to his amazement, The Gov discovered that all three garments; shirts, pants and jacket were all see-through. Now this seemed a bit strange, so he questioned his tailors about the nature of his attire. How could there be all of these new rules, how could all of this money be coming in, and nothing of substance emerge?


"That's the beauty of the system," they replied. "The Gov should have no secrets. The new fairness that has been brought to the process of clothing selection assures that all parts of The Gov will be visible. This of course, is as it should be. The fact that all of this money is now being regulated and dispensed by us is simply a bureaucratic necessity, and you shouldn't worry your head about it."


Embarrassed over his apparent lack of understanding of so simple a concept, The Gov finished dressing and entered the streets to begin the parade. He soon discovered that he wasn't the only one embarrassed however. You see, The Gov was never very attractive to look at and it was only the participation that the people had in influencing his raiment that made the process (and The Gov's appearance) bearable. It was likewise this freedom of expression in influencing the very nature of The Gov that made the parade worth having. The more The Gov walked on the route, the more the parade became a disaster; with fewer smiles on the faces of the people or The Gov (Would you be smiling if everyone could see through your clothes?), many shunning the offered handshakes, and no self-respecting mother holding her baby forth for kissing by what they could see walking down the street.


Attendance is going down at the parade these days, though the two tailors seem to be happy enough. While the clothing choice method may or may not be more fair than it was, people find that when they aren't going to get to fully participate in the process, why show up for the party at all.

THE END

Our newly arrayed election process is happily parading itself in the streets of the country these days under the McCain-Feingold legislation, and the results are anything but satisfying (0r pretty). These new clothes are anything but fair, and the very politicians who sought their implementation are now seeking new ways around them. The story above hints at the madness of the past and the next round of "fairness" lying ahead, with legislators feeling that only the government can properly dispense the money if elections are to be truly fair.


These new clothes provide less protection and less Freedom of Expression that they were supposed to, and less than is guaranteed us in the Constitution; but we are asked to ignore that in the name of "fairness". And as for the amount of money being spent, it's even greater than it was before these so-called protections were put in place. The ugly truth of the matter (which is fairly easy to see through to) is that this kind of "fairness" is anything but.

X-Rated Televison

  This is now Day 2 of the Democratic Convention in Denver, and I had a number of calls last night asking if I had watched, or was watching the coverage. 

Conservative friends were convinced that I would have something insulting, derogatory, or simply amusing to say about the nonsense that is typical of political conventions. Liberal friends (yes, I do have some) were looking for me to have seen the light and admit the error of my ways. 

As I so often do with my friends, I disappointed them. You see, I didn't watch any of the 1st night coverage. I don't intend to watch the 2nd night, nor any subsequent nights of the coverage. I further do not intend to watch any of the coverage of the Republican Convention in Minneapolis / St Paul.

Now you would think that I would watch both conventions, using them as a source for the nonsense that I regularly put forward here. While I am sure that they would indeed provide a target rich environment, I do not consider this blog to be a political blog, in spite of the fact that I post on political subjects from time to time. I further consider the modern political convention to be a "made for TV" event (part reality show, part awards show), staged by a political party for the purpose of self-aggrandizement. As such, it could be more clearly defined as a form of political self-stimulation with a goal of political ecstasy as its result. (You know, masturbation. OK, I said it.)  While I have nothing in particular against the concept of such soft-core porn, I like to keep it separated from my politics.

I will therefore not be commenting on the large scale "circle jerks" staged by either party in the coming weeks. If you need me, I will be looking for a good movie to watch in the evening, even if I have to play all of my old DVD's.

Presidential Legacy

We are very near the election of a new president and the end of yet another presidency in the United States. I am sure that thoughts have turned already in the White House to funding for a presidential library, arranging secret service details for the outgoing chief, and of course the presidential retirement. 

Not that George W Bush appears to need the $161,200 that he will receive annually, or the funding that he will receive for an office and staff to assemble his papers and help to document his “presidential legacy”. He was doing fairly well before he took office, as is the rest of his family, and I expect that this retirement funding will not affect his lifestyle. 

Perhaps in spite of this, Mr. Bush will choose the Clinton path, and a future of speaking engagements around the world that earn him millions of dollars; making any retirement fund superfluous. These post-presidential corporate engagements have so placed the Clintons that they need probably never worry about their future income. (Besides, there is always Hilary’s senatorial retirement to factor in.)  

I find this interesting when compared to another former president, who earned $13,507.72 per year upon leaving office, his army pension. When Congress realized that he was writing his own letters, and buying and licking his own stamps, they granted him an allowance for office expenses and a retroactive $25,000 per year pension. This president, when offered positions on corporate boards, spoke plainly and declined saying, “You don’t want me. You want the office of the president, and that doesn’t belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it’s not for sale.” 

Later still in his life, when Congress was preparing to award him the Congressional Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused further honor writing, “I don’t consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any reward, Congressional or otherwise.” 

We should bless the memory of the man who once said, “My choice early in life was either to be a piano player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there’s hardly any difference.” We should thank providence that we were lucky enough to be led by a man of keen insight, excellent judgment, and rapier wit; and hope that our current leaders learn something from his example. We should honor the memory of … Harry S Truman.

 

The Curse of Language

With the current loss of good manners in our society, a subject which I've talked about in an earlier post on the end of civilization, one thing that I didn't touch on is one near and dear to my heart ... language. There is little doubt that language has been degraded in a number of ways in recent years. I'm not talking about slang here, which has always been part of the vernacular, and most of which has either fallen away over time as useless or absorbed into general usage. Neither am I talking about street talk, which is a problem of its own and probably better dealt with in a separate posting. No, what I am talking about here is the proliferation swearing that has now become an acceptable form of communication.

Back in the old days, the late George Carlin used to talk about the "Seven Words You Can't Say On Television". You still can't say those words on Network television, but they have certainly made their way into cable. George himself used them on an HBO special or two over the years. Radio, like broadcast TV, still has the FCC looking over their shoulder and issuing both rulings and fines in a vain attempt to maintain a modicum of decorum, but mostly in vain. Their rules have been modified over the years so many times that what would have drawn that agency's ire only a few years ago are now heard on the air regularly. (Besides, they are a government agency and therefore models of a lack of consistency or common sense.) As for the use of such language on the Internet, you have only the limits of your imagination as to what's OK. Even here in the blogging world the level of swearing is up to the writer / moderator / editor of the blog. They not only control the language used in their own postings, but the level of cursing that will be tolerated in the comments.

Don't get me wrong. I am far from a saint in this regard. I was taught to swear while still in my teens by a boss whose every other word was a more than a little off-color. George was an inspiration in my impressionable youth of creative cursing (and a generally belligerent outlook on life), and in switching gears as I went from what was permissible language at work to what was permissible at home. Heck, cursing was cool, having the combined qualities of being forbidden, dangerous, and obscene (everything a teenage boy could ask for). Even as a young adult, swearing was a significant part of my life. I was working every day with machinery that was attempting to devour me a little bit at a time (it actually got a piece at one point). When not cursing the equipment that was supposed to be providing me with a living for failing to perform to my expectations, I was cursing my fate to any who would listen over the wounds that this equipment inflicted upon me.

I find these days that the fires of my youth have somewhat cooled and I have little or no use for such language. Good behavior and good manners have disappeared from so many aspects or our lives that I find myself clinging to those few that remain. This doesn't make me better than others, just different (and probably older). Neither does this doesn't mean that the need for demonstrative expression doesn't come to me from time to time, but that I now seek a different outlet. Instead of profanity, I normally attempt to use something more clever to express my thoughts (sometimes failing miserably). Instead of calling someone a "bastard" as an example, I state instead that "their parents were never married". Instead of saying the "shit hit the fan", I say that the "natural fertilizer hit the oscillating rotator". Admittedly it isn't much, but it makes me smile and does help to pass the time.

Perhaps we can all try to be a little more creative in expressing ourselves. Words, do in fact, mean things; and the need to choose them more carefully is something that we all should be concerned with. Language is one of the things that supposedly separates us from the beasts (and can be a lot of fun). We need to revel in that separation and take advantage of it. We need to find ways to express ourselves without losing the constructs of polite society and common decency. We need to abandon the "Curse of Language".

(... and for those of you who disagree with me, up yours) :-)

The Lighter Side - Update II

I was sent this as an email response to the recent postings on the Russian incursion into Georgia. It was such a classic that I had to add it to the discussion.

 

Things That Make You Go Hmmm #4

It's Friday and for no other reason that I am in a particularly inquisitive mood, it's time once again for things that make you go hmmm. I can't help it that like Johnny 5 of "Short Circuit" fame, I have "questions, queries, posers". So once again I'm going to put some of them out there in the hope of gaining additional insight in my life.

• Can fat people go skinny dipping?
• Why do fat chance and slim chance mean the same thing?
• If Wile E. Coyote had enough money for all of that stuff from Acme, why didn't he just order a take-out meal.
• If you were in a vehicle going the speed of light, what would happen if you turned on the headlights?
• If the Universe is everything and the Universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?
• Do fish get cramps from going into the water less than an hour after eating?
• Why are there five syllables in monosyllabic?
• If all of the world's a stage, who is the audience and where are they sitting?
• Why does a round pizza come in a square box?
• How do you avoid working the graveyard shift at a cemetery?
• If firefighters fight fires and crime fighter fight crime, what do freedom fighter fight?

I'll be waiting to hear the answers. I know that "the Truth is out there".

Biting The Hand That Feeds Me

I have found myself once again, criticizing a part of the newspaper industry for failing in its mission. Since I earn my living by supplying some of the equipment that connects the printing press with the loading dock to these purported purveyors of information, I can't help but wonder if my behavior is somewhat counter-productive. 

In point of fact however, I care a great deal about the industry that I have been a part of now for more than 30 years. Not only do I have an abiding (and purely selfish) desire to see it survive, if not thrive as it has in the past ( for at least another 15-20 years anyway); I have a great deal of respect for many of the people that I have met and worked with over that period. Maybe that's why I find these almost constant examples of abuse of basic journalistic principles so disturbing.

• News is news, and opinion is opinion; and editors at newspapers are the gatekeepers to insure that it remains that way.
• Editorial opinion is the right of a newspaper owner and editor, but like all rights, it should be tempered by limits. Loose facts and slanted reporting are well outside of those limits.
• A newspaper (and its owner) are supposed to serve the community, not the other way around.
• A newspaper is supposed to be the watchdog of politics, not a player in it nor manipulator of it.

Lest anyone think that I am being in any way courageous or heroic with voicing such comments, let me quickly reassure you that I am anything but. First, the readership of this blog is not so great that I need be concerned about my impact on world events, nor lose a night's sleep over becoming the target of some mad stalker. (In point of fact, I believe that my readers are mostly friends and family, with a few "sympathy" readers who plod through my meanderings in a benighted sense of guilt for some past misdeeds of their own.) The fact that my opinion carries but a tiny fraction of the weight that my shoes do every day therefore reassures me of my safety and provides a sense of well-being.

You might begin to wonder whether my cowardice therefore explains why I am mentioning no specifics in this case that has drawn my current ire. The reasons that I am stating for not doing so are two-fold however:

1. The problem is symptomatic of the entire industry these days to some extent. Pointing out one more specific example serves no purpose except to bring a cult of personality into the conversation.
2. I am an abject coward with just barely enough common sense to refuse to insult my customers too much or in particular before I attempt to do further business with them (see, I admitted it).

Besides, those in my local area have been recently inundated with these "facts" and "stories" and know them too well. Those of you who are not will probably be grateful that I will not bore you with the local nonsense, nor dignify these stories by repeating them.

In an industry consumed by self-congratulation and awards handed out by the score within their peer group, perhaps newspapers should think about returning to the aspirations that they seem to hold so dear. Perhaps then, the term "journalistic integrity" would not become a the joke that it seems to be in the present, nor a term capable only of being applied in the historical sense. The truth of the matter is that there aren't many reporters left in the newspaper world (or anywhere else). You would think that those still gainfully employed as such might want to do a better job. You would think that the same could be said of their editors and owners. As for the current local situation in my most recent of hometowns, let me finish by saying this:

"Be careful about throwing stones at other kids when you live in the "Glass City". The damage done can be horrendous, and the breakage may injure more than those you desire."

Surfing Security

My eyes were recently opened by an article that my son sent me on the Security of the Internet. Now when Sean sends me this kind of information on the subject of computing, I have to take it seriously. He works as a team leader in support of the server technology for a large banking firm (that I should probably not mention for fear of getting him in trouble). 

His knowledge of computers is extensive (he built the one that I am typing this on), his knowledge of the technology of servers and the Internet is extensive, and he works for a financial institution that has him working long hours to help make their sites more secure. (He also plays a mean game of World of Warcraft, and often helps his feeble old man's attempts at such endeavors.)  

It seems that once again, Mankind's reach has exceeded his grasp with respect to the technology that he counts on for his daily existence. Only this time it has to do with the security of the entire Internet that is used for financial transactions of one type or another (Oh yeah, and the fact that they are mostly keeping it a secret). It appears that the Internet was never actually designed to do many of the things that are an everyday part of the lives of us who shop and bank using the World Wide Web (hence the www designation). 

The DNS system, invented in 1983, was simply never designed to be secure enough for all of what we are now using it for. I am not talking about the security of the computer that you currently use and attempt to guard through the use of firewalls and virus protection software (though that is still certainly a concern). No, I'm talking about the security of the very web addresses that we send passwords, credit card numbers, and other personal information to on a regular basis. 

In the description of one of the companies making software to fix the problem, we are playing Russian Roulette by putting that information out there. What's more, even the fix that they are currently offering merely takes this to “playing Russian roulette with a gun that has 100 bullet chambers instead of six.” Take heart however. There appears to be a better, and more long term solution is in the works. 

A system known as DNSSEC is not only on the horizon, but has already been adopted by the governments of Sweden and Puerto Rico for their web addresses. It is an encryption based system of site identification that would dramatically improve the confidence that information being sent to a site would go only to that site.  

Meanwhile, there is another version being worked on by a Professor Bernstein at the University of Illinois who claims to have found a system that circumvents the these issues. Neither change however, appears to be imminent. Meanwhile, as in most other things in life "Let the Buyer Beware" (or in this case, the user).  

By the way, though appearances belie it, I am in fact an exiled Liberian prince. If you will only send me $1,000.00 to free capital that is currently tied up in the international banking world, I can promise you a return of 50% interest. If you don't have cash, just send me a credit card and social security number. (Hey, Just Kidding ...)

 

The Lighter Side - Update

It occurs to me, when thinking about our handling of the Russian "invasion" (I can find no other word for it) to be reminded of the way the Patriots fighting the Revolutionary War must have felt about the French. 

The fact that the French seemed to have brokered the current cease fire brings that home even more. Here they were, fighting for not only their lives; but for the very future of their country, seeking only the freedom to create and maintain a democratically elected government in the face of tyranny. Promises of help had been given and accepted, but most of what had been received was no more than lip service. 

I don't know what the answer is here, as I am not a trained diplomat, but surely there must be something more to be done by the US and the rest of the world. Quite frankly, the way that the United States is treating this freedom loving people in the face of this oppression makes me feel dirty. (Fortunately being American, I maintain the option of taking a bath.)